Commonwealth v. Cooper’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
60 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably Commonwealth v. Ali (2010), Commonwealth v. Cox (2009)
60 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Commonwealth v. Pierce · Yarborough v. Gentry · Commonwealth v. Grant · Commonwealth v. Stoltzfus · Commonwealth v. Bomar
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A prosecutor has reasonable latitude during his closing argument to advocate his case, respond to arguments of opposing counsel, and fairly present the Commonwealth's version of the evidence to the jury. Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 553 Pa. 485 , 720 A.2d 79, 110 (1998). A challenged statement by a prosecutor must be evaluated in the context in which it was made. Commonwealth v. Hall, 549 Pa. 269 , 701 A.2d 190, 198 (1997). Not every intemperate or improper remark mandates the granting of a new trial. Commonwealth v. Stoltzfus, 462 Pa. 43 , 337 A.2d 873 (1975). Reversible error occurs only when the unavoidable effect of the challenged comments would prejudice the jurors and form in their minds a fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant such that the jurors could not weigh the evidence and render a true verdict. Commonwealth v. [Jermont] Cox, 556 Pa. 368 , 728 A.2d 923, 931 (1999).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Admission of evidence is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be reversed absent a showing that the trial court clearly abused its discretion. Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 558 Pa. 478 , 738 A.2d 406, 414 (1999). Not merely an error in judgment, an abuse of discretion occurs when "the law is overridden or misapplied, or the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, as shown by the evidence on record." Commonwealth v. McAleer, 561 Pa. 129 , 748 A.2d 670 (2000).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a timely written motion to pierce the Rape Shield Law pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 3104. (2) Trial counsel was ineffective because he did not argue that the door had been opened to impeachment evidence after the victim testified that they were just friends. (3) Trial counsel was ineffective because he did not confront the victim with her prior inconsistent statement or other impeachment evidence. (4) Trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to call key witnesses to corroborate the petitioner’s position. (5) Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call any character witnesses on behalf of the petitioner. (6) Trial counsel was ineffective for declining to pursue a motion to suppress petitioner’s alleged oral statement to police officers. (7) Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to Sergeant Schaffer’s identification of the substance on the victim’s pants as “consistent with blood.” (8) Trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to make a hearsay objection to Officer Floirendo reading aloud portions of a police report during witness testimony.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.